Cases 11 - 20 of 22
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, et al
as 15-16604
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE
Defendant - Appellee:
INYO COUNTY, WILLIAM LUTZE, Inyo County Sheriff and THOMAS HARDY, Inyo County District Attorney
Hardy v. Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas et al
as 1:2015cv00373
Plaintiff:
Thomas Hardy
Defendant:
Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County Commissioners, Director, Lawrence CDJFS-Bureau of State Hearings and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County et al
as 1:2015cv00367
Plaintiff:
Bishop Paiute Tribe
Defendant:
Inyo County , William Lutze and Thomas Hardy
Cause Of Action: 25 U.S.C. § 640 Indian Tribal Rights
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County et al
as 1:2015at00192
Plaintiff:
Bishop Paiute Tribe
Defendant:
Inyo County, William Lutze and Thomas Hardy
Cause Of Action: 25 U.S.C. § 640 Indian Tribal Rights
Hardy et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
as 2:2015cv00727
Plaintiff:
Ann Hardy and Thomas Hardy
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hardy v. FMF Capital, LLC et al
as 3:2014cv00801
Plaintiff:
Harold Thomas Hardy, III
Defendant:
FMF Capital, LLC, HSBC Finance Corp. , JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Hardy v. Adam Rose Retirement Plan
as 13-3105
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Thomas Hardy
Defendant - Appellee:
Adam Rose Retirement Plan and Adam Rose, individually and as Plan Administrator
Thomas Hardy v. Toshiba America Information Systems Inc
as 8:2013cv00516
Plaintiff:
Thomas Hardy
Defendant:
Toshiba America Information Systems Inc
Hardy v. Adam Rose Retirement Plan et al
as 7:2011cv04303
Plaintiff:
Thomas Hardy
Defendant:
Adam Rose Retirement Plan and Adam Rose
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Thomas Hardy et al v. Mandalay Mortgage, LLC et al
as 2:2010cv01716
Defendant:
Capital City Mortgage, DOES, HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Sani Hardy and Thomas Hardy
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
